Washington Hawks Have Turned Their Attention to Iran-Accusing It of Producing Weapons of Mass Destruction and Sheltering Al-Qaeda Terrorists. Sound Familiar? (America)

Stephen, Andrew, New Statesman (1996)

They never learn, do they? US strategists genuinely thought that the people of Iraq would burn all their banknotes because of the pictures of Saddam Hussein on them, and that the US dollar would then become the preeminent currency in Iraq. Instead -- surprise, surprise -- Iraqis clung on to their money, the dollar failed to soar in value in Iraq, and the $20 payments made to each Iraqi plunged in value. Another strategic miscalculation.

Now we are in the midst of more potentially disastrous ones, in the long and the short term, too. The talk among politicians over Memorial Day weekend inevitably included that frightening word "destabilisation", this time over Iran. Some openly talked of aiding Iran's exiled mujahedin -- just as the US financially supported Osama Bin Laden's mujahedin after the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, and just as it bolstered Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The hawks in the administration -- notably our friend Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary -- insist that Iran is knowingly sheltering al-Qaeda members, planning nuclear weapons, and so on.

Despite Dubbya's famous labelling of Iran as one of the three countries comprising an "axis of evil", relations between the US and Iran had seemed to be improving. Ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979, the two countries have had no diplomatic relations. But that changed, in practice if not in theory, after the 11 September 2001 atrocities. The US and Iran held secret talks in Geneva and New York under UN auspices, and Iranian co-operation increased during the invasion of Iraq.

Iran also covertly opposed the Taliban in Afghanistan, only to be rewarded with Bush's "axis of evil" accusation; now the US has broken off the secret talks, and is communicating with Tehran only through the media. Specifically, the US is now accusing Iran of harbouring Saif al Adel, al-Qaeda's security boss, Osama Bin Laden's son Saad, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom Washington accuses of being a Saddam henchman.

But the 12 May suicide bombings in Riyadh in which 34 people -- including nine Americans -- were killed, really gave the hawks the excuse they needed. Quoting "chatter" -- the new buzzword here to describe supposed intelligence on terrorist movements -- the likes of Rumsfeld accused Iran of sheltering the al-Qaeda terrorists who were believed to be responsible for the Saudi bombings.

Iran has responded by saying that in the past year it has handed over more than 500 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists; it has also said that a dozen or so al-Qaeda members are believed to be in northern Iran, but that it does not know if they are senior planners or junior members. The Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, says: "There is no reason for us to help this organisation."

We are now, nevertheless, told that the US has "made it clear" that it expects Iran to co-operate in the Saudi investigations. The administration is also airing a second complaint against Iran: that it is fomenting trouble in Iraq, attempting to -- here's that word again -- "destabilise" American rule there.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff, says: "Some portions of Iranian-backed forces and organisations are in Iraq now, trying to influence events there to the coalition's detriment."

His boss, Rumsfeld, meanwhile wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Assistance from Iraq's neighbours will be welcomed. Conversely, interference in Iraq by its neighbours or their proxies -- including those whose objective is to remake Iraq in Iran's image -- will not be accepted or permitted. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.